Decentralized facility financing versus performance-based payments in primary health care: a large-scale randomized controlled trial in Nigeria.

Madhulika Khanna, Benjamin Loevinsohn, Elina Pradhan, Opeyemi Fadeyibi, Kevin McGee, Oluwole Odutolu, Gyorgy Bela Fritsche, Emmanuel Meribole, Christel M J Vermeersch, Eeshani Kandpal

Journal: BMC medicine 2021;19(1):224

PMID: 34544415

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Health system financing presents a challenge in many developing countries. We assessed two reform packages, performance-based financing (PBF) and direct facility financing (DFF), against each other and business-as-usual for maternal and child healthcare (MCH) provision in Nigeria.

METHODS

We sampled 571 facilities (269 in PBF; 302 in DFF) in 52 districts randomly assigned to PBF or DFF, and 215 facilities in 25 observable-matched control districts. PBF facilities received $2 ($1 for operating grants plus $1 for bonuses) for every $1 received by DFF facilities (operating grants alone). Both received autonomy, supervision, and enhanced community engagement, isolating the impact of additional performance-linked facility and health worker payments. Facilities and households with recent pregnancies in facility catchments were surveyed at baseline (2014) and endline (2017). Outcomes were Penta3 immunization, institutional deliveries, modern contraceptive prevalence rate (mCPR), four-plus antenatal care (ANC) visits, insecticide-treated mosquito net (ITN) use by under-fives, and directly observed quality of care (QOC). We estimated difference-in-differences with state fixed effects and clustered standard errors.

RESULTS

PBF increased institutional deliveries by 10% points over DFF and 7% over business-as-usual (p<0.01). PBF and DFF were more effective than business-as-usual for Penta3 (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively); PBF also for mCPR (p<0.05). Twenty-one of 26 QOC indicators improved in both PBF and DFF relative to business-as-usual (p<0.05). However, except for deliveries, PBF was as or less effective than DFF: Penta3 immunization and ITN use were each 6% less than DFF (p<0.1 for both) and QOC gains were also comparable. Utilization gains come from the middle of the rural wealth distribution (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that both PBF and DFF represent significant improvements over business-as-usual for service provision and quality of care. However, except for institutional delivery, PBF and DFF do not differ from each other despite PBF disbursing $2 for every dollar disbursed by DFF. These findings highlight the importance of direct facility financing and decentralization in improving PHC and suggest potential complementarities between the two approaches in strengthening MCH service delivery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03890653 ; May 8, 2017. Retrospectively registered.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Address: The MacMillan Center, Yale University, New Haven, USA.; The Global Fund, Global Health Campus, Chemin du Pommier 40, 1218 Grand-Saconnex, Geneva, Switzerland.; Health, Nutrition and Population, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC, 20433, USA.; Health, Nutrition and Population, The World Bank, 102 Yakubu Gowon Cres, Asokoro, Abuja, Nigeria.; Development Data Group, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC, 20433, USA.; The Federal Ministry of Health of Nigeria, New Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase III, Ahmadu Bello Way, Central Business District, FCT, Abuja, Nigeria.; Development Data Group, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC, 20433, USA. [email protected].; Development Research Group, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC, 20433, USA. [email protected].
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.